Its about time Canon responded to the Nikon D800 and D800E. This fixation with high ISO, low DR, and high noise needs to stop. We need a quality camera to bring back the 1Ds range, a camera that is best in class.

For whatever reason Canon have been asleep at the wheel for a while now and its time they woke up. I have no wish for ISO extremes, nor do I shoot video at all, but I do shoot landscapes, so want a camera that has a minimum of noise and world beating DR. Maybe removal of the anti-aliassing filter?

It's a valid fixation. There are many more sports and wedding photographers than landscape photographers. Hence why Canon has dominated the market.

Its about time Canon responded to the Nikon D800 and D800E. This fixation with high ISO, low DR, and high noise needs to stop. We need a quality camera to bring back the 1Ds range, a camera that is best in class.

For whatever reason Canon have been asleep at the wheel for a while now and its time they woke up. I have no wish for ISO extremes, nor do I shoot video at all, but I do shoot landscapes, so want a camera that has a minimum of noise and world beating DR. Maybe removal of the anti-aliassing filter?

It's a valid fixation. There are many more sports and wedding photographers than landscape photographers. Hence why Canon has dominated the market.

+1. Seriously, some guy just said "very rarely do people shoot in high iso"....are you kidding me? I'm not a sports photographer but UNDERSTAND the market Canon dominates. Sports photography is all about high ISO, high shutter! Just because you don't use it doesn't mean others don't.

Edit: Also whose to say by working in high ISO Canon won't create a new standard of where ISO 800 will produce as clean as an image as ISO 100 and so on as the years progress. You want to stop this improvement because of why?

Seriously, some guy just said "very rarely do people shoot in high iso"....are you kidding me?

To be fair, what he said was above ISO 6400. I suspect he's true, only because until the most recent Canon bodies, shooting above ISO 6400 gave unusable results. That's not true anymore. On my 1D X, ISO 6400 is the new ISO 800.

Seriously, some guy just said "very rarely do people shoot in high iso"....are you kidding me?

To be fair, what he said was above ISO 6400. I suspect he's true, only because until the most recent Canon bodies, shooting above ISO 6400 gave unusable results. That's not true anymore. On my 1D X, ISO 6400 is the new ISO 800.

>.< true I guess, but it would be nice if Canon did continue the improvement of its high ISO. Hah true, even 12800 saved me a couple of times.

To the first, not really, if you know how to use your equipment and have a basic grasp of post processing as I demonstrate, very large high detail and quality prints are more than possible with the current sensors. More MP might be nice, but it isn't, generally, needed, and the disadvantages of always having more can vastly outweigh the advantages of having it, just ask any D800 owner about their computer processing times and storage requirements!

I have a pretty solid grasp of how to use my equipment, how to post process, I own a 44" printer, I shoot professionally and I also exhibit in galleries. I can tell you from years of experience that printing large depends on what you mean by "large" and how acceptable the results are depends on the subject matter. I've made 6-foot tall exhibition portraits from a single 5dII file. But I would not print a landscape photo (or a cityscape photo as is my case often) with lots of fine detail in it larger than 20x30 at most from a Canon camera (and often I find 16x24 unacceptable) because the fine detail falls apart. So it's not quite so simple.

Quote

To the second, it depends how you look at it. But no, I have the print and if the crop is 7" wide on your screen then it is the same size as the same detail on the print.

As for my methodology, I upscaled the original 21mp image to print at 240, anybody saying you need to print big prints at higher resolutions just isn't actually doing it. I then wanted to show an actual life sized (as close as different resolutions of monitors will allow) crop from that 31"x47" print. To do that I measured my screen and a 700px image in the forum, it is 7" wide on my 27" monitor, I then cropped a 7" section out of my print file and downsampled it to 700px. This means it is an accurate reproduction of my print life sized if you are displaying it at close to 7", if you have a calibrated screen all the better.

An image displayed on a monitor is not quite the same as an image printed on paper. In any case, if you upscaled your print to 240ppi, then a 7-inch crop should be 1680 pixels across.

But again, just because you can print a portait large and it looks good doesn't mean a landscape photographer shooting with the same camera can print a photo large and have it look good. So I'd advise against making blanket statements about others not knowing what they're doing just because they say they could use more resolution.

Private by design. I could not agree with your more, pretty much about EVERYTHING that you have said. I am newer to large printing and digital...I have a 5DIII...just did a 24x36 print of a heavily processed file and the results were great and my customer was happy enough to order two more upon receipt of the first print.Can you tell me "exactly" what you mean by up-sampling? (is it simply preparing the file's Height and Width for printing with the existing file info and the PPI falls where it may, or are you doing some tricky computer stuff?). Thanks.

I see a 40MP camera just being used for larger commercial purposes and the price will obviously reflect that. I think my 5D will serve my needs for quite some time now.

The only purpose a larger MP camera will serve is to provide either smaller pixels or to allow for deeper cropping when necessary. Size and print enlargement are irrelevant unless you plan on printing full frame shots as wall murals.

That being said, there could also be other benefits such as better AF system, less noise at high ISO and better highlights. Could we see a 16 bit DR with this one? We'll see.

Based on pixel density alone, most will never have a need and all will never want to have to store such large images forever.

Computers of today are not computers of the future. 8 megapixel displays will be standard soon enough (they've been showing off prototypes for more than half a decade now. Stupid recession), and within 15 years 32 megapixel displays should be hitting the market (I would rather we jump straight to 32MP, but no current video output standard is capable of the required bandwidth).32MP on a 30" computer screen is decently sharp, so I don't expect too much increase beyond that (there is still potential for higher density and larger screens, but bandwidth becomes an even bigger issue the further you go).Anyway, 32MP sounds like a good number to shoot for in the long term, meaning that if I want grand kids in the distant future not to giggle at how small my pictures are it should be at least 32MP. Yes, saying "for posterity's sake" is a lame excuse, get the better camera when technology catches up, but I do like the idea of things having long term value. Given that we do have the technology to capture ultra high resolution pictures right now I would like to use it, and at worst I will end up with some insanely detailed big prints to hang on the wall.

On the point of high ISO, it's actually extremely valuable on a budget. The situation I'm in right now is that I have a 400f5.6 and find it easy to under expose (high shutter speed to freeze motion). To improve the situation my options are: 1. Buy a 300f2.8 and TC or 500f4. 2. find a camera that has the same image quality at a higher ISO. One of these options is a lot less expensive than the other.

It'd be a shame if this was a 1 series body, I mean you don't really need the epic build quality and weather sealing in the studio and whilst it's nice for landscapers, i think the majority would prefer a lighter, smaller body. Although I'm sure a High mp 1 series body will fit some peoples needs.

I don't feel there is a full frame in the canon line up for me at the moment: 1dx out of budget. 5D mkiii, autofocus would be wasted on me. 6D, whilst a fine camera, doesn't quite cut it in areas I want. Just little things that add up like, lack of white balance button and thumb stick, not 5 series build quality and lack of cross points in the autofocus.

We would need some better lenses for that. 500 and 600 mk II would need some upgrading. You will find your shots also get softer. Not because of the camera but because you are pushing the limits of the lens too far.

Its about time Canon responded to the Nikon D800 and D800E. This fixation with high ISO, low DR, and high noise needs to stop. We need a quality camera to bring back the 1Ds range, a camera that is best in class.

For whatever reason Canon have been asleep at the wheel for a while now and its time they woke up. I have no wish for ISO extremes, nor do I shoot video at all, but I do shoot landscapes, so want a camera that has a minimum of noise and world beating DR. Maybe removal of the anti-aliassing filter?

It's a valid fixation. There are many more sports and wedding photographers than landscape photographers. Hence why Canon has dominated the market.

High ISO if clean is great for landscape shots when movement is not desirable - for instance freezing stars without wishing to get star trails. If you're taking shots from a moving plane, then faster speeds are essential (>1/1000th is ideal). Add in the desire to shoot in the golden hour, and suddenly higher iso is useful. Finally, as has been mentioned, not having to take a tripod everywhere opens up flexibility - although I appreciate that may be negated by the higher resolution.

1Dx bodies are also perhaps better in harsher conditions - be that cold, wet or sand, all often encountered by landscape photographers.

I thought as mentioned in other threads, Canon's latest L glass is not sensor limited. And certainly not by a 40MP sensor.

It'd be a shame if this was a 1 series body, I mean you don't really need the epic build quality and weather sealing in the studio and whilst it's nice for landscapers, i think the majority would prefer a lighter, smaller body. Although I'm sure a High mp 1 series body will fit some peoples needs.

I don't feel there is a full frame in the canon line up for me at the moment: 1dx out of budget. 5D mkiii, autofocus would be wasted on me. 6D, whilst a fine camera, doesn't quite cut it in areas I want. Just little things that add up like, lack of white balance button and thumb stick, not 5 series build quality and lack of cross points in the autofocus.

6D: entry FF, feature packed [gps/wifi]High MP: for studio and Landscape, decent AF for versatility. 5D mkiii: Weddings and Events with some sport and wildlife, Best all rounder.1DX: The Best

Sith I'm with you on a lot of that but whats becoming apparent to me, is as the Canon higher end DSLRs progresses it makes it more strategic to control the updates of models in calculated 'developments' and implentations as a lot of people noted with the 6D. Plus there's less of a wow factor or original technological breakthroughs with new models at the moment.

The 5D and 5DII were breathtaking in DSLR development terms that helped canon gain a lot of market ( and new market) so they dont want to loose the majority of buyers now. Unfortunately a lot are disgruntled at the moment with the sensor but they definitely have the rest of the camera and lens line developed better than most others i believe.

And I believe that they realised they made a mistake (but not for us thankfully) releasing the 5DII when the 1DsIII and 1D 4 were available together. ALthough each had different uses the 5D II ate into their markets but so many more Video guys bought the 5DII and a new generation of design, corporate, wedding and event photographers took to it. Good price near highest quality in its league. it was a winner. So now they are protecting their sales by trying to keep the current owners on the same upgrade path for sales consistency instead of releasing breakthrough products. - 5D III brilliant camera for a pro now or serious amature much better than the 5DII, so most are happy apart from a few of us that are looking for better DR, noise and MP . While in reality it doesn't matter for most.

Sith the 5DIII really is the best all rounder I can think of. 1Dx not neccesarrily the best but the best for press and sports, event and maybe catalogue fashion. I would say vs cost the 5D III is the best. 7 D for sports and wildlife enthusiasts and tighter budget wedding and event guys. But the quality is a lot worse than the 5DIII and 1Dx if looked closely, depends on what you're doing though. Then the 6D as a gadget updated but actually regressed 5DII replacement for those on a a bit more of a budget that want to move to FF photo or video or for some second bodies.

I'm a bit worried that a 1DxS would not be so much an advantage for the press, events and sports guys. I think fashion would welcome it and others like myself doing advertising, design and corporate work would welcome it but the 1D body could be a a bit overkill, I prefer mine without a battery grip when on a tripod. And lets not beat around the bush it will attract a another 3K on the price tag which would seem ridiculous compared to what Nikon did with D800.

So could this be a marketing strategy.. release it on a 1D series body first , the keenest will buy and those who have cash to splurge to get hold of it at a premium, seeing it as an actual advantage to their work. Then 2 years later release a cut down 5D ish version and capitalise on that next. then we are back to 1Ds III and 5DII territory?? which is a bit confusing as I'm sure a 1D body development may be more costly than releasing a 5D cheaper model that probably sells more.

Personally I think the 1D series should be mid high MP with the best autofocus like we have now for press, sports, and fashion. then the 5 series being more general for wedding, corporate and events and people that dont need or want a 40MP monster. Then there should be a 5D s with 40mp and poss 16 bit at slight premium of 1K more thats aimed more at advertising, design and even wedding guys that want to do more higher quality work and dont mind the extra filesize and post involved because they will be charging for it and presumably their work will show it.

One thing that I do believe they are doing right is updating their lens line up to be better and ready for a high MP sensor.

Its about time Canon responded to the Nikon D800 and D800E. This fixation with high ISO, low DR, and high noise needs to stop. We need a quality camera to bring back the 1Ds range, a camera that is best in class.

For whatever reason Canon have been asleep at the wheel for a while now and its time they woke up. I have no wish for ISO extremes, nor do I shoot video at all, but I do shoot landscapes, so want a camera that has a minimum of noise and world beating DR. Maybe removal of the anti-aliassing filter?

It's a valid fixation. There are many more sports and wedding photographers than landscape photographers. Hence why Canon has dominated the market.

High ISO if clean is great for landscape shots when movement is not desirable - for instance freezing stars without wishing to get star trails. If you're taking shots from a moving plane, then faster speeds are essential (>1/1000th is ideal). Add in the desire to shoot in the golden hour, and suddenly higher iso is useful. Finally, as has been mentioned, not having to take a tripod everywhere opens up flexibility - although I appreciate that may be negated by the higher resolution.

1Dx bodies are also perhaps better in harsher conditions - be that cold, wet or sand, all often encountered by landscape photographers.

I thought as mentioned in other threads, Canon's latest L glass is not sensor limited. And certainly not by a 40MP sensor.

Cropping is useful, even for landscapes, where you can't change your position or zoom - for a variety of reasons.

The simple conclusion is of course, everyone has different needs. And sure, eventually, Canon will try and satisfy them all, but they're never gonna keep everyone happy...

But then if they did, these forums would be a lot quieter

That's great! However, it doesn't have anything to do with why Canon has neglected a high MP body. The reason is plain and simple. High ISO/high shutter/super AF goes to sports and wedding photogs. Not landscape photogs. Take all the shooters, especially pros. What would you guess? 98% wedding/sports, 2% other? That's all great that everyone has different needs, but is beside the point.

+1. Seriously, some guy just said "very rarely do people shoot in high iso"....are you kidding me?

Some guys are saying that because Canon is not doing too badly in the high ISO department. If Canon falls behind the competition by 1 to 2 stops in high ISO, you'll hear MANY folks screaming they need better high ISO performance. That's what happened to low ISO DR, no?